49 Wash. 2d 716 - White v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When a statute is ambiguous, the construction placed upon it by the officer or department charged with its administration, while not binding on the courts, is entitled to considerable weight in determining the intention of the legislature; and the persuasive force of such interpretation is strengthened when the legislature, by its failure to amend the statute, silently acquiesces in the administrative interpretation. This is particularly true when, as here, the section is subsequently (1) considered by the legislature, (2) amended in some other particular, and (3) the administrative construction of the section is not repudiated.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Griffin v. Eller · 77 Wash. 2d 569 - Pringle v. State

2. ““* * * [I]f the bracket schedule is examined, it will be seen that on sales at or near the top of each bracket, the full amount of the tax is not collected from the buyer. The theory of the bracket system is that, on sales involving fractions of less than one half cent, the seller will absorb the tax; where as on sales involving a tax of more than one half cent or less than one cent, the buyer will pay an amount in excess of the actual tax. It is an overall application, the system is supposed to yield 3 percent on all sales, and this is generally found to be true. Of course, there are exceptions, where a seller deals in commodities all of which sell at a price which falls above or below a position in the bracket which yields exactly 3 percent. * * * “It is true that it classifies sales for the purpose of applying the rate, but the rate remains constant throughout the schedule, and the schedule applies alike to every seller. In its general application, it imposes no hardship. It is only when a seller chooses to sell only items which are priced at a point on the schedule where less than the full tax is to be collected that he is forced to absorb part or all of the tax, and this is the exception rather than the rule.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Piedmont Canteen Service, Inc. v. Johnson · 17 Utah 2d 70 - Robert H. Hinckley, Inc. v. State Tax Commission

3. “It is apparent, in reading the statute as a whole, that a distinction is made between the tax imposed and the tax to be paid by the buyer and collected by the seller. The former remains constant — 3 per cent on each sale — while the latter varies according to the schedule which the tax commission is authorized to issue. The inevitable result is that, in some instances, a seller will collect more tax than he is required to remit to the state, and in others, he will collect less.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 77 Wash. 2d 812 - Kitsap-Mason Dairymen's Ass'n v. Washington State Tax Commission